Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court held that the powers to hear an appeal under Section 107 of the Act are not strictly subject to filing within the prescribed time, and a delay would not deprive a person of the right to appeal if a writ petition is filed for condonation of delay. The Court found that the provisions of the Act are intended to provide relief to businessmen where demands may have been raised wrongfully or illegally. If a delay occurs due to business affairs, precluding an appeal, the businessman could become remediless. The Court noted that the cancellation of GST registration has a cascading effect, making an efficacious remedy essential. Therefore, the Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was not interfered with, but the Appellate Authority was directed to hear the appeal afresh on merits and decide it expeditiously, preferably within three months. The ratio decidendi is that the Appellate Authority's power to hear an appeal under Section 107 is not absolute and can be exercised even with a delay if a writ petition is filed for condonation, especially when the delay is minor and the pre-deposit is made, to ensure access to justice.

Facts

The petitioner, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging an order by the Appellate Authority that dismissed their appeal due to a one-day delay in filing. The petitioner stated that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control, and the pre-deposit amount had already been made. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment by the same High Court in M/s Vasudeva Engineering vs. The Union of India and others, which had condoned a similar delay, citing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others. The respondent, Union of India and others, accepted notice and agreed to decide the case on merits based on the precedent set in the Vasudeva Engineering case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority has the power to condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the extended period prescribed under the GST Act, particularly when the delay is minimal and attributable to circumstances beyond the appellant's control, and the pre-deposit has been made? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was inadvertent and minor, and that the Appellate Authority should have condoned it, especially since the pre-deposit was made. They relied on the High Court's judgment in M/s Vasudeva Engineering, which in turn relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd., to argue that such delays should be condoned to ensure access to justice and prevent businessmen from becoming remediless. Respondent's contention: The respondent accepted the notice and agreed to decide the case on merits in terms of the High Court's judgment in Vasudeva Engineering, implying they did not contest the principle of condoning delay in such circumstances.